Forum:Wordmark
Since we need a wordmark to replace the current Wiki logo, this is just a general proposal for anyone to come up with one, and post a link to it here in the proposals section. I have asked JoePlay, our friendly staff member to make one as well. It never hurts to cover all bases. Also we really need this up quickly and before October 21 if possible. November 3rd at the latest. Lancer1289 20:16, October 6, 2010 (UTC) Also I forgot to add this earlier, but the wordmark must be 250 x 65 pixels. I don't know why I didn't add that sooner, forgot about it is the only thing I can think of, so apologies for any confusion caused. Lancer1289 00:59, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Proposals # By Teugene: # # # 2, 3, and 4 uploaded by Joeplay # By JakePT: # By Teugene: # By SoulRipper: # By Dammej: Proposal #6 is currently being used as the wordmark (file was uploaded as File:Wiki-wordmark.png and implemented by User:Tedjuh10). -- Commdor (Talk) 21:24, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Voting Place your vote under the heading of the wordmark you are voting for. VOTING IS NOW CLOSED. NUMBER 1 BY TEUGENE WINS. Wordmark #1 by Teugene #There are really only two I like, and this one (IMO) is the better of the two. (The other is #5) SpartHawg948 00:52, October 17, 2010 (UTC) #JakePT 01:20, October 17, 2010 (UTC) #One small thing is nagging me about this one: jagged edges. Other than that, I prefer it. If that could be fixed, it'd be perfect. -- Dammej (talk) 04:00, October 17, 2010 (UTC) #I support this option on the condition that the jagged edges be fixed, otherwise I'll change my vote to #6. -- Commdor (Talk) 04:58, October 17, 2010 (UTC) #This or 5, although it would be nice to have the Normandy in the mark. ≈ AnotherRho 19:03, October 20, 2010 (UTC) Wordmark #2 by JoePlay Wordmark #3 by JoePlay Wordmark #4 by JoePlay #There's something about this one that I like, and I just can't describe it. Lancer1289 17:01, October 16, 2010 (UTC) Wordmark #5 by JakePT Wordmark #6 by Teugene Wordmark #7 by SoulRipper Wordmark #8 by Dammej Despite what Dammej thinks, I dig it, not as 'plain' as the others. I love the inclusion of the Normandy. --The Illusive Man 04:33, October 17, 2010 (UTC) Comments At the moment, I'm favoring proposal #4. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:02, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :Yes number 4 is a good one. However I also like #s 1 and 2 being a different style. In #3, the Wiki just looks too small compared to the others. If I had to pick, I'd say 4, but that is why this is here, for people to put up different logos and later next week it's voting time. Lancer1289 01:25, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Added one with a lower case 'wiki' that I liked the look of.JakePT 02:48, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Re-did the whole logo for visual consistency utilizing the original font. — Teugene (Talk) 04:16, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :This is going to be interesting when this comes to a vote. So many to choose from, and they all look good. Lancer1289 04:20, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Proposal #6 is awesome. It'll get my vote (unless something even better comes along between now and voting time, that is :P ). -- Commdor (Talk) 04:55, October 7, 2010 (UTC) I like #1. Numbers 2, 3, and 4 look kind of "blurry" and just generally lower-quality than 1, 5 is OK, no real complaints there, and I don't like 6 because I don't like how Wiki is bigger than Mass Effect, and sort of dominates the whole thing. So, out of the current selections, 1 is my preferred option, with 5 being my second choice. SpartHawg948 06:22, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :Number 6 has been chosen arbitrarily? I agree with SpartHawg here. The emphasis on Wiki is kinda unsettling to me. I much prefer option #1, if it could be smoothed out a little (you can see some sawteeth on the M in masseffect). -- Dammej (talk) 18:49, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Agreed: "wiki" shouldn't be bigger than "mass effect", since the ME universe is the raison-d'être of this wiki, not Wikia. None of them are bad. I guess I prefer 1, although 4 and 5 are pretty nice too. --AnotherRho 20:11, October 7, 2010 (UTC) It looks like #6 was put up to have something up. I agree with the intention (we did the same thing for the nav bar). With the pressure off to come up with something now, we can allow for time for new suggestions to be made prior to the eventual voting period, where we can approve of something permanent. For the record, I still like #6. The only thing that would be better, in my view, would be the same layout ("Mass Effect" on one level and above "Wiki"), but different sizes: "Mass Effect" would be the same size as "Mass" in the conventional game logo, and would have that planet outline splitting it, and "Wiki" would be the same size as "Effect" in the game logo and without the outline. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:41, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :Just to throw this in there, since a new one (#7) has been added, and apparently, in another display of the stripping away of our autonomy, Wikia has selected one for us (hopefully temporarily), still prefer #1, with #5 being my second choice. I have the same issue with #7 as with #6. The word 'Wiki' is just too ahem "darn" big! If anything is going to be emphasized, it should be Mass Effect, not Wiki. After all, it's the Mass Effect Wiki, not the Mass Effect Wiki. SpartHawg948 23:10, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Would it help if I reduce the size of the "wiki" word? I could throw that in as another option here. — Teugene (Talk) 01:40, October 8, 2010 (UTC) I can't say that I see the point, honestly. I'm pretty much sold on option 1 already. Additionally, another issue with #6 that I just noticed is the curvy-line. I like #1, because the curve bisects the word "Mass", just like it does in the game title (as seen on the game itself), while in #6 it does not, but rather bisects the word "Wiki". As such, I prefer the one that looks more "official" (as it were). So, in order for me to approve of #6, Wiki would have to be made smaller and the curve would have to come out of Wiki and go back into Mass, and by that point I don't see enough difference between #1 and #6 to make much of a difference. SpartHawg948 01:46, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :Well either way, this vote will be intersting when we start it up. Lancer1289 01:51, October 8, 2010 (UTC) Can we have rounds of voting for this? Like the top 3 vote-getters in the first round advance to the second round, and the winner of the second round becomes the site wordmark. Since we have seven candidates, and (on a good day) maybe twice as many users who regularly vote on policies and projects like this, we could end up stretching the voting base thin. I think we'd all prefer for the wordmark to be chosen by a majority of users, not a plurality. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:43, October 16, 2010 (UTC) :That is probably what is going to end up happening as the voting won't conclue for another week, but we'll just have to wait and see how the voting pans out and we'll make our decision then. However yes I'm going to have to say that it probably come doen to two or maybe even three rounds of voting. It all depends on the votes and how many are cast for each. Again we'll just have to see what it looks like next week. Lancer1289 23:22, October 16, 2010 (UTC) I recall Dammej uploading a Wordmark of his own (File:Dammej_Wiki-Wordmark.png) a few days ago, did he not want to submit it? --The Illusive Man 00:44, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :I don't know maybe he didn't want to. Anyway I won't add it to the voting, becuase I don't know why he didn't submit it, but come people vote on this otherwise there won't be much of a vote at all. Lancer1289 00:47, October 17, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, if you really like it you can go ahead and add it here and vote on it. But I think it looks like crap. :P I just wanted to provide other art to maybe get other people's noodles going on the problem. :P -- Dammej (talk) 04:00, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :::Well I didn't know what you wanted as your comments on it were a little confusing when I looked at it. Nervertheless, I have since added it to the list so this will be the last one added as it was uploaded before voting started and was missed. Lancer1289 04:05, October 17, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yeah, it's fine. To address The Illusive Man's comment: Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of the logo overall, else I wouldn't have made it. I just lack the artistic skill to make it into what I'd envisioned in my mind. It could be so much better. I am so envious of those with the mad photoshop skills to bring beautiful things to life. -- Dammej (talk) 06:59, October 17, 2010 (UTC) I updated the logo with less jaggedness in the logo. Hopefully the slightly updated one looks better now. — Teugene (Talk) 06:02, October 17, 2010 (UTC) :Much better! :) SpartHawg948 07:11, October 17, 2010 (UTC) Dammej's (#8) is good. Think the red background should be made transparent, and the white "wiki" made silver, and maybe drop the brackets altogether. I'd vote for it then, but I don't have the time to change it. Oh well. --AnotherRho 18:46, October 20, 2010 (UTC) Given how the voting's going right now, perhaps I spoke too soon before. #1 may win in a landslide. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:05, October 21, 2010 (UTC) Final Comments Well there is no need for a runoff vote here, as number 1 got more votes than the other two, more than double actually. Anyway I'll update the wordmark with the new one in a few minutes. We can always revist this if necessary, however again Congratulations to Teugene as #1 is chosen for the Wordmark. Lancer1289 17:35, October 27, 2010 (UTC)